Looking for Artistry in the Commercial World: The Spielberg Canon

[Dukefrukem]

Not even in the top 30 (http://www.moviemistakes.com/top.php) ;)

[Irish]

I don't care about suspension of disbelief. In fact, the film constantly highlights its own artificiality- showing the real-life merchandise, messing The Shining-like with the geography of the place (big-ass moat out of nowhere), the tons of glaring errors (believe it or not, they actually enhance the experience for me; remember Sam Jackson's line about 'item 151 on today's glitch list'?), and yes, the deus ex machina ending- in order to better blur the distinction between Jurassic Park the movie and Jurassic Park the ride. I genuinely think this is one of the smartest films about the nature of entertainment, and I don't feel at all like Spielberg was just coasting through it like he clearly was with his last three movies.

Your interpretations of this kind of stuff give it far too much credit (like your take on Titanic). They're also much more interesting than the actual movies.

The basic premise is out of Crichton's book. It's subversive and tongue in cheek and clever, especially being written at the tail end of the commercially excessive 80s. The joke here, and the artistic commentary, are baked into the premise. Spielberg didn't even have to play it up because the humor of the situation plays well enough as it is. So the credit you're attributing to Spielberg should really go to Crichton.

A hurricane in Hawaii disrupted shooting schedules and destroyed sets, which, along with Spielberg's desire to get to the Schindler set asap, accounts for the truncated third act, deux ex, and some of the continuity errors in the movie.

What you're attributing to art is just the unfortunate collision of mother nature and the necessities of modern commercial moviemaking.

This is Spielberg. He's good at constructing fun rides. He's not a reflective thinker. He's not Eric Roehmer or Robert Altman. He rarely, if ever, makes subtle, clever social commentary in his movies. When he does, they're awful and obvious.

Here, he plays out Crichton's premise as quickly as he can and then hops a plane to the Warsaw ghetto (his funding for Schindler was contingent on his doing Jurassic Park). It's a fun movie, and probably deserves more credit as an actioner diversion than it got on release, but let's not make it out to be more than it is.

[Dead & Messed Up]

But the characters didn't deserve such an easy out, and in the last 10 seconds the audience is cheated.

Don't care. It's awesome. I also don't care that the shark was chewing on the air tank like a fucking cigar.

[Ezee E]

Love Jurassic Park. It does exactly what it wants to do in showing believable dinosaurs as every child dreamed for them to be.

[StanleyK]

I forgot to mention I saw Amblin' a while back. It's pretty good. I don't think there's anything substantial I can say about it. Raiders' and Qrazy's take on this thread are right on. I also watched Schindler's List last night. It's still one of the best movies I've seen. I don't think there's anything substantial I can say about that one, either, probably because I'm a poor reviewer. We need more Raiders up in here.

[Qrazy]

Your interpretations of this kind of stuff give it far too much credit (like your take on Titanic). They're also much more interesting than the actual movies.

The basic premise is out of Crichton's book. It's subversive and tongue in cheek and clever, especially being written at the tail end of the commercially excessive 80s. The joke here, and the artistic commentary, are baked into the premise. Spielberg didn't even have to play it up because the humor of the situation plays well enough as it is. So the credit you're attributing to Spielberg should really go to Crichton.

A hurricane in Hawaii disrupted shooting schedules and destroyed sets, which, along with Spielberg's desire to get to the Schindler set asap, accounts for the truncated third act, deux ex, and some of the continuity errors in the movie.

What you're attributing to art is just the unfortunate collision of mother nature and the necessities of modern commercial moviemaking.

This is Spielberg. He's good at constructing fun rides. He's not a reflective thinker. He's not Eric Roehmer or Robert Altman. He rarely, if ever, makes subtle, clever social commentary in his movies. When he does, they're awful and obvious.


What was the alternate ending for the film? Because your statements suggest that there was one. I don't see how filming a deus ex which is in the shooting script is somehow rushing the film anymore than shooting anything else which is in the script. Keep in mind that that deus ex isn't just some quick shot. It's still an incredibly vfx heavy scene that requires quite a lot of planning beforehand.

Also you're very wrong about Spielberg's social commentary. Spielberg has a lot going on under the surface in all of his films but especially his 70s work... Close Encounters, Jaws, etc. When he began to draw more attention to 'issues' in his later work he began to get a bit heavy handed at times.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What was the alternate ending for the film? Because your statements suggest that there was one. I don't see how filming a deus ex which is in the shooting script is somehow rushing the film anymore than shooting anything else which is in the script. Keep in mind that that deus ex isn't just some quick shot. It's still an incredibly vfx heavy scene that requires quite a lot of planning beforehand.

The original scripted ending had Grant maneuvering one of the raptors, via a crane, into the jaws of the rex skeleton, which killed it. Then, when they're nearly trapped by the surviving raptor, it suddenly keels over dead, and the survivors see Hammond with a shotgun in his hand.

My understanding is that Spielberg simply didn't like the ending and preferred to see the Rex return one more time. Frankly, I think it's the right decision. The shot of the Rex stomping in and snacking on the raptor plays like an awe-bookend to the first shot of the Brachiosaur.

I'll see if I can dig up some pictures to support this.

[transmogrifier]

I prefer the current ending because it reinforces the idea that there are some things humans just have no place interfering with, and that nature (and the interactions therein) doesn't act according to human whims. We can impact on it, but in the end we are still at the mercy of the world we are born into to.

The idea that old men with shotguns can take out raptors just like that would weaken the whole premise of the film.

[Qrazy]

The original scripted ending had Grant maneuvering one of the raptors, via a crane, into the jaws of the rex skeleton, which killed it. Then, when they're nearly trapped by the surviving raptor, it suddenly keels over dead, and the survivors see Hammond with a shotgun in his hand.

My understanding is that Spielberg simply didn't like the ending and preferred to see the Rex return one more time. Frankly, I think it's the right decision. The shot of the Rex stomping in and snacking on the raptor plays like an awe-bookend to the first shot of the Brachiosaur.

I'll see if I can dig up some pictures to support this.

Yeah I prefer Spielberg's ending as well and personally I think it's much more thematically engaging. It drives the point home that the film isn't dinosaurs vs. humans. These are just creatures driven by their survival needs. A dinosaur will kill a dinosaur just as easily as it will kill a person.

[Scar]

The first time I saw the Rex ending, I had a somewhat perplexed reaction when it showed up out of the blue, but when the Rex roared at the end of said scene, I knew all was right in the world.

[Izzy Black]

I like Jurassic Park more than Schindler's List. I don't think it's special because it's tongue-in-cheek. I take the film for what it is, and it's more than just fun, in my view. Spielberg isn't a particularly political filmmaker and never has been. He's less interested in saying something about society, culture, consumerism, or what have you, than lamenting Jewish suffering, I think. That's the extent of his cultural insights - that is, investigating his own cultural identity. At its most basic level, Jurassic Park is about survival - like most of Spielberg's films. But tied with Crichton's novel, something so fundamental and primitive as survival is given a rich moral dimension. In contrast to horror films (like many of his own films), where the idea of survival is morally unambiguous and necessary for driving the action, in Park, the question of what it means for an entire species to survive becomes salient. The dinosaurs, as made abundantly clear to us through the philo-babbling of the cast in the beginning, are the real victims of the story. This plays into the super entertaining irony (that even the kids can understand!) of watching the impotent educated elite become victims of their own (only dubiously unintentional) predatory ambitions. You could say the film is saying something about the modern era of progress, which is potentially quite true for Crichton's novel, but I'd imagine Spielberg's only interest is in dissecting humanity at a more brute, fundamental level than at the purely political. No matter how refined, educated, and prosperous we become, we still manage to find a path to our own self-destruction. The lingering question, given this apparently recurring animalian ancestral impulse, is whether we are even fit to survive. And for all of that, it's just so damn entertaining to watch.

[Izzy Black]

I want to add that it's important to note that for Spielberg - despite (what I take to be) a centrally local self-analysis theme of Jewish identity - there's no real "us" versus "them" mentality. This is obviously clear in Schindler's List, but it extends notably to his other films as well. There's always an inclusive sense of the "Other" (hence, E.T. and Close Encounters). The caricature of Spielberg's warmed-over humanism ought to be understood, I hope, in this very specific light where often arbitrary divisions are made between "us" and "them" , but are subsequently broken down and blurred (even where "them" is personified as pure evil). This doesn't amount to cheap humanism, but a specifically relevant and very personal theme for inquiry. It's most useful to consider this in light of the above discussion of Jurassic Park. The allegory shows that humanity as a whole is inclined toward its own demise. This pops up in the dialogue early in the film when the characters use "man" in the representational sense ("Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaur.... Dinosaurs eat man"). Thus, it's too smallish and weak in scope to think of Spielberg's contemplation on humanity in terms of ethnic groupings (Nazis versus Jews, Homo-sapien versus Extraterrestial, etc). By philosophical fiat, the crimes of one group are on all of humanity's conscience. It's liberal guilt at its most existential foundations.

[Dukefrukem]

The first time I saw the Rex ending, I had a somewhat perplexed reaction when it showed up out of the blue, but when the Rex roared at the end of said scene, I knew all was right in the world.

Ever wonder how it got in to begin with? Did it stealthy open and close a window? :rolleyes:

[Scar]

Ever wonder how it got in to begin with? Did it stealthy open and close a window? :rolleyes:

Yeah, when I first watched it, but I let that thought wander off before the scene concluded.

Kinda like Bruce chomping on an oxygen tank like a cigar.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, when I first watched it, but I let that thought wander off before the scene concluded.

Kinda like Bruce chomping on an oxygen tank like a cigar.

I had to look up Jaws wiki to find out that they called one of the mechanical sharks "Junkyard Bruce".

[Scar]

I had to look up Jaws wiki to find out that they called one of the mechanical sharks "Junkyard Bruce".

The shark was named Bruce after someone's lawyer....

[Winston*]

I watched Amistad last night for a class. A truly terrible film. The Anthony Hopkins section might be the worst part of any of Spielberg's films.

[Spinal]

I watched Amistad last night for a class. A truly terrible film. The Anthony Hopkins section might be the worst part of any of Spielberg's films.

GIVE US, US FREE!!!

[Spinal]

Really a shame, too. Because that subject deserves a better film.

[transmogrifier]

I watched Amistad last night for a class. A truly terrible film. The Anthony Hopkins section might be the worst part of any of Spielberg's films.

This is almost correct - I would only put the framing device of Saving Private Ryan, the sex scene in Munich, and the entireity of 1941 above (below?) it.

[Dukefrukem]

This is almost correct - I would only put the framing device of Saving Private Ryan, the sex scene in Munich, and the entireity of 1941 above (below?) it.

God that was bad.

[Irish]

Also you're very wrong about Spielberg's social commentary. Spielberg has a lot going on under the surface in all of his films but especially his 70s work... Close Encounters, Jaws, etc. When he began to draw more attention to 'issues' in his later work he began to get a bit heavy handed at times.

Something going on under the surface of Jaws? Is that supposed to be some kind of pun?

[Bosco B Thug]

1941 has a real way of uncommanding your respect. That said, it has to have some of the grandest, prettiest spectacle I've seen from Spielberg, like the delightful dance hall riot and the beautiful and awesome sight of a 1940s plane gliding over a completely realized 1940s Hollywood.

Watched in portions, it's an often well-done thingamajig with some inspired slapstick (and some wayward morals and sense...).

[StanleyK]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park didn't hold up as I'd thought it would. In my youth the dinosaur hunting scenes made it the most badass thing ever, and even a few years ago Spielberg's pet theme of parenthood resonated enough that I still enjoyed it, but now I guess I caught on to its numerous and significant flaws. The drama is limp, the comic relief is truly lame (even the set-piece with the trailer in the cliff, which is otherwise the highlight of the film, is marred by the depressingly bad cheese-burger joke), the characters are ill-defined (Are we supposed to feel bad for Pete Postlethwaite when he says whathisname didn't make it?) or downright incongrous (Dr. Sarah Harding is the worst offender. She says they're supposed to not interfere with the habitat at all, but she causes a Stegosaurus stampede, then hypocritically chastises that dude for smoking a cigarette. And shouldn't such an expert know better than to walk around with a shirt soaked in the baby Rex's blood?), and there are several holes in its logic (What kind of idiot listens to music on headphones in such a stressful situation? How did the T-Rex escape, eat the entire boat's crew, and then get itself locked back in the container? And how does it stomp through a suburb without waking the whole block up?), and not like in the first movie where the sketchy internal logic actually made sense in the context of the theme. This movie doesn't really stand for anything except 'Nature Is Good; don't fuck with it.'

Its biggest fault, though, is that the protagonists are insufferably smug pricks. At least in the first movie I kind of got the feeling that Malcolm was supposed to be a ranting crazy, but here his team is all but sanctified for being pro-nature, nevermind how many human lives their antics cost. Jurassic Park wasn't really the kind of movie where you root for the characters, but I still felt an emotional connection to the material. The Lost World doesn't offer anything; the action is impressive but not truly thrilling, and the quieter moments are only watchable because of Spielberg's craft and not for the drama.

Anyway, my opinion of the Jurassic Park franchise now forms a perfectly neat downward trend:

Jurassic Park 1 ****
Jurassic Park 2 **½
Jurassic Park 3 *

[StanleyK]

I didn't hate Amistad. There are some truly inspired choices in it; the opening battle and its honest, brutal violence; the subsequent scenes, which don't subtitle the Mende dialogue, putting us in the shoes of the captured Spanish slave traders rather than the Africans; the way the film handles the character of Queen Isabella (her introduction is an excellent showcase of Spielberg's visual wit); the very ending, showing that despite all their ordeals, returning to Africa was ultimately tragic at least for Cinqué; and I enjoyed the way the score weaved together African tribal and American patriotic musical cues. The score is at the same time one of the worst things in this movie, overscoring almost every moment with no subtlety, doing all the emotional heavy lifting for dramatic beats that don't earn sentiment by themselves. As terrific as some of Amistad, most of it is preachy, cloying and not at all commanding of an emotional connection. It mostly just takes the easy way out, with cartoonish villains, a perfect (and perfectly modest) flawless hero, and a dull climax where an old white dude once again saves the day.

[StanleyK]

Whoa, I never noticed before that Bryan Cranston is in Saving Private Ryan.

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad271/PTA-Dre/cranston_spr.jpg

[D_Davis]

1941 has a real way of uncommanding your respect. That said, it has to have some of the grandest, prettiest spectacle I've seen from Spielberg, like the delightful dance hall riot and the beautiful and awesome sight of a 1940s plane gliding over a completely realized 1940s Hollywood.

Watched in portions, it's an often well-done thingamajig with some inspired slapstick (and some wayward morals and sense...).

In many ways, 1941 reminds of the kind of crazy comedies that were being made in Hong Kong in the early '80s.

[D_Davis]

I watched Jurassic Park a few months ago for the first time since seeing it opening day in the theater. I didn't like most of it. I enjoyed the first half, during the discovery part. But once the action starts-up, it completely lost my interest.

This is actually how I feel about Jaws as well. I LOVE everything up until the final act, when they get on the boat and go hunting. From that point on, I completely loose interest.

[Qrazy]

I watched Jurassic Park a few months ago for the first time since seeing it opening day in the theater. I didn't like most of it. I enjoyed the first half, during the discovery part. But once the action starts-up, it completely lost my interest.

This is actually how I feel about Jaws as well. I LOVE everything up until the final act, when they get on the boat and go hunting. From that point on, I completely loose interest.

You lose interest in Quint's story about the sailors being eaten alive by sharks? Come on bro.

[StanleyK]

Artificial Intelligence: AI remains a very powerful movie, and it turns out, a very funny movie as well, particularly in the first hour where David is trying and hilariously failing at appearing human. These two factors aren't coincidental; the earlier, lighter scenes are made poignant with the knowledge of what's to come, and they build the emotional engagement which pays off so wonderfully later on. This movie also reinforces my belief that horror is separated from comedy by a very thin line, and it works better when the filmmakers keep that in mind. Some of the funniest moments in AI (David's initial attempts to be human, the smiling robot maid, Gigolo Joe seducing his customer- really, every time he talks or moves. What a great character.) are also the creepiest. I still find that the ending could've been executed better (the dialogue could be significantly cut down, and there had to have been a better way to convey what bringing Monica back to life entailed without the infodump and narration), but I have no problems with it otherwise. It's a great ending.

[StanleyK]

Catch Me if You Can and Minority Report are both good and yet slightly disappointing for different reasons. The first is magnificently entertaining, I could watch it over and over and not get tired, but despite being full of interesting thematic threads, they end up being false starts that don't lead to any fulfilling conclusion. Minority Report, on the other hand, is almost as smart and perceptive as AI, but dramatically not nearly as compelling and it suffers as Spielberg's weakest films do from action that is visually amazing but not involving. I also had a problem with its production design, which I felt was too in-your-face, so to speak, with its sci-fi elements, to the point where it was obnoxious, like they were trying to dangle the cool gadgets in our faces to distract from the story. I don't know, is this a weird complaint? It feels weird, but it was legitimately bugging me.

I also saw The Terminal. People like to shit on Spielberg's endings, particularly as of late, but so far this is his only film where I can say the last act seriously hurt it. Up until about 90 minutes, it's a slight but amiable and entertaining film; Hanks is great and it's fun watching him adapt to his environment. After that it piles on so much ill-conceived sap that it does away with pretty much all the good will it had built up.

[Irish]

Catch Me if You Can and Minority Report are both good and yet slightly disappointing for different reasons. The first is magnificently entertaining, I could watch it over and over and not get tired, but despite being full of interesting thematic threads, they end up being false starts that don't lead to any fulfilling conclusion. Minority Report, on the other hand, is almost as smart and perceptive as AI, but dramatically not nearly as compelling and it suffers as Spielberg's weakest films do from action that is visually amazing but not involving. I also had a problem with its production design, which I felt was too in-your-face, so to speak, with its sci-fi elements, to the point where it was obnoxious, like they were trying to dangle the cool gadgets in our faces to distract from the story. I don't know, is this a weird complaint? It feels weird, but it was legitimately bugging me.

I also saw The Terminal. People like to shit on Spielberg's endings, particularly as of late, but so far this is his only film where I can say the last act seriously hurt it. Up until about 90 minutes, it's a slight but amiable and entertaining film; Hanks is great and it's fun watching him adapt to his environment. After that it piles on so much ill-conceived sap that it does away with pretty much all the good will it had built up.
I don't think that's weird at all.

MR, when you get down to it, is nothing more than a chase movie. It could have been set at any time and any place, so the sci fi elements feel extraneous. I'm still mystified that Spielberg and Cruise excised the more interesting elements from Dick's story and turned out something so bland.

Gotta disagree with you about AI. It's unfocused and formless, and Spielberg should have taken Kubrick's inability to work out a script as a big, big clue. The biggest problem is the source, which while clever is only about 1000 words or so. Unless you're doing something like The Killing -- ie taking the story to a completely different place after 15 minutes of screen time -- you just don't have enough material to build a movie around. Especially one with an absurdly long running time give the subject matter. What still shocks me is that these two guys, no dummies, couldn't see that Supertoys, at least as a basis for a feature, presents an incredibly flawed premise. Seriously, wtf? How does that happen?

Spielberg isn't good a subtlety or nuance, or, really, emotional depth. Catch Me and Terminal display that problem in spades, as do his other films from this period. Every big budget promises some kind of "summer thrillride" bullshit in its ad copy, but Spielberg actually delivers on it. Other stuff, not so much.

[StanleyK]

War of the Worlds: Great movie, aptly thrilling and horrifying, engaging drama and a fitting ending. My main gripe is that they actually showed the aliens; coming as it does after an already pretty tense hide-and-seek scene, having the characters scurry around hiding from them again feels like overkill, not to mention it's always better to keep some mystery hanging. Come on, Spielb, have you forgotten about Jaws?

Munich: Probably his most meditative and morally complex film yet. The shot with the terrorist as he's being televised, the first assassination, the shooting of the female agent, all sublime moments. I used to not really like its final stretch, and while it does drag a bit towards the end and makes explicit questions that would have been better left impied, I feel like it ends on a pretty good note (slo-mo sex scene aside).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull: Yeah, it's pretty bad. The best example is the pale imitation of the desert truck chase from Raiders of the Lost Ark that is the jeep fight in the jungle. In Raiders it was all practical effects; here there's lame green-screen. In Raiders the scene pitted only Indy against truckfuls of Nazis, here they extended screentime to all his annoying sidekicks. The scene in Raiders was dialogue-free for seven minutes, here there's plenty of retarded banter. And of course, there's Shia Labeouf swinging through the vines with monkeys, which strikes as an indefensible choice. Who could've thought that was a good idea or entertaining to watch?



All caught up! Now I only have left his current releases (which will be the first time I see a Spielberg movie in theaters, so I'm pretty excited), but I'll leave that for their respective threads.



Amblin' (1968) ***
Duel (1971) ***
The Sugarland Express (1974) ***
Jaws (1975) ***½
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) ****
1941 (1979) **
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) ****
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) ***½
Kick the Can [Twilight Zone: The Movie] (1983) *
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) **½
The Color Purple (1985) **½
Empire of the Sun (1987) ****
Always (1989) *½
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) **½
Hook (1991) **
Jurassic Park (1993) ****
Schindler's List (1993) ****
Amistad (1997) **½
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) **½
Saving Private Ryan (1998) ***½
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) ****
Catch Me if You Can (2002) ***
Minority Report (2002) ***
The Terminal (2004) **
Munich (2005) ***½
War of the Worlds (2005) ***½
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull (2008) **

[transmogrifier]

For me:

Duel - 70
Sugarland Express, The - 44
Jaws - 94
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - 67
1941 - 9
Raiders of the Lost Ark - 70
ET - 81
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - 68
Color Purple, The - 51
Empire of the Sun - 60
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - 61
Always - 57
Hook - 39
Schindler's List - 78
Jurassic Park - 77
Lost World: Jurassic Park, The - 59
Amistad - 46
Saving Private Ryan - 73
A. I. - 59
Minority Report - 66
Catch Me if You Can - 57
Terminal, The - 48
Munich - 71
War of the Worlds, The - 58
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 48

[Pop Trash]

I still find that the ending could've been executed better (the dialogue could be significantly cut down, and there had to have been a better way to convey what bringing Monica back to life entailed without the infodump and narration), but I have no problems with it otherwise. It's a great ending.

On my latest viewing of this near-masterpiece, I also noticed that John Williams' score, which is brilliantly modernist and non-Williams-y for most of the film, segues into schmaltzy major-key typical Williams tripe. I think that was another reason so many people didn't like the ending initially, what with Williams ratcheting up the sentimentality of it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I dislike War for a lot of the dull, generic reasons that most do. The weird alien inconsistencies and the crap with the son in particular. I do enjoy Cruise's performance, and some of the individual sequences are horrifying and unexpected (especially the people freaking out over the car). But as far as big-budget-9/11-anxiety-based-inexplicable-alien-attack-PG-13-horror-thrillers go, I prefer Cloverfield.

[Spinal]

(which will be the first time I see a Spielberg movie in theaters, so I'm pretty excited)

That's pretty astonishing.

[Pop Trash]

That's pretty astonishing.

StanleyK is apparently 12.

[elixir]

I've never seen a Spielberg film in theaters either.

[Spinal]

I guess if you're 20 or so, it's not as surprising, but still. Here's the ones I've seen in the cinema:

The Adventures of Tintin
Munich
War of the Worlds
Minority Report
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Saving Private Ryan
Amistad
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Schindler's List
Jurassic Park
Hook
Always
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
Raiders of the Lost Ark

[Watashi]

I've seen in theaters:

War Horse
The Adventures of Tintin
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Munich
War of the Worlds
The Terminal
Minority Report
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park
Hook
E.T.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I can't imagine not seeing a single Spielberg film in theaters.

[Derek]

I can't imagine not seeing a single Spielberg film in theaters.

If you haven't seen Hook in theaters, you haven't really seen it.

[Watashi]

If you haven't seen Hook in theaters, you haven't really seen it.
Well, yeah. The New Beverly should have monthly midnight shows of it.

[StanleyK]

My cinephilia only started around 2006, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull didn't look very interesting. Anyway, I'm already embarrassed enough, no need to rub it in.

[Watashi]

I wasn't a cinephile, but like most kids in the 90's, I was in love with dinosaurs and saw the shit out of Jurassic Park.

[elixir]

I'm 19 and didn't really go to many movies until 2008/2009. Dinosaurs don't really do much for me either.

[Pop Trash]

I think I've seen every single post 1980 Spielberg movie in the theater with the exceptions of The Color Purple and Amistad.

[Derek]

I think I've seen every single post 1980 movie in the theater with the exceptions of The Color Purple and Amistad.

Pop Trash doesn't care about black people!

[Pop Trash]

Pop Trash doesn't care about black people!

I knew that was coming.

[Spinal]

Pop Trash doesn't care about black people!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/Kanye-Telethon-SG_526889c.jpg